The next point to be considered is the position of the contract labourer on the expiry of his contract.  That position is very strikingly illustrated by an incident which Mr. Smallbones relates in a despatch dated September 23, 1912.  It appears that towards the end of last August the Governor-General visited an important plantation on which seven hundred labourers are employed.  The contracts of these men had expired.  They asked to be allowed to leave the plantation.  They were not permitted to do so.  “Thirteen soldiers were sent from Loanda to intimidate them, and they returned to work.”  They were then forced to recontract.  Mr. Smallbones very rightly pointed out to the Governor-General the illegality of this proceeding.  “His Excellency,” he says, “admitted my contention, but remarked that in the present state of the labour supply such scrupulous observance of the regulations would entail the entire stoppage of a large plantation, for which he could not be responsible.”  Mr. Smallbones adds the following comment:  “I have ventured to relate this incident, because it shows the difficulties of the situation.  The plantation on which it occurred is very well managed, and the labourers are very well treated there.  Yet it has failed to make the conditions of labour attractive to the natives.  And as long as the Government are unable to force a supply of labour according to the regulations, they will have to tolerate or even practise irregularities in order to safeguard the property and interests of the employers.”

There need be no hesitation in recognising “the difficulties of the situation.”  They are unquestionably very real.  But how does the incident related by Mr. Smallbones bear on the contention of the Portuguese Government that no state of slavery exists?  In truth, it shatters to fragments the whole of their argument.  As has been already mentioned, Sir Edward Grey defined “forcible engagement” as “slavery.”  Can it be for one moment contended that the engagement of these seven hundred men was voluntary and not forcible?  Obviously not.  Therefore slavery still exists, or at all events existed so late as August 1912.

The third point to be considered is whether the liberated slave is practically able to take advantage of the freedom which has been conferred on him.  Assuredly, he cannot do so.  Consider what the position of these men is.  They, or their parents before them, have in numerous instances been forcibly removed from their homes, which often lie at a great distance from the spot where they are liberated.  They are apparently asked to contribute out of their wages to a repatriation fund.  Why should they do so?  They were, in a great many, probably in a majority of cases, expatriated either against their will or without really understanding what they were doing.  Why should they pay for repatriation?  The responsibility of the Portuguese does not end when the men have been paid their wages and are set free.  Neither can it be for one moment